DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 128999--------------------------------------------------
high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: Ray236
Date: August 27, 2026, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgpile.com/m/QxxZWiT
Hi everyone, I’m looking for some advice regarding a Redbridge
PCN for stopping on a red route on High Road, Ilford.
I’m a licensed private-hire driver and had an Uber passenger
pickup at this exact location. When I arrived, there was nowhere
suitable to pull over because of the red-route restrictions. I
couldn’t see the passenger, so I was preparing to drive around
and look for them. I remained inside the vehicle the whole time
and did not leave it parked or unattended. There was also a van
in front of me near the loading bay which was indicating that he
was moving, so I was waiting for him to clear the area.
The CCTV photo makes it look like I was stopped, but I believe
the full footage will show that I was only there briefly and was
actively dealing with a passenger pickup.
Has anyone successfully appealed a Redbridge Council red-route
PCN (contravention 46n) in a similar situation, particularly as
a private-hire/Uber driver? I’d really appreciate advice on the
strongest grounds to use, whether there are any specific
exemptions or arguments that apply to passenger pickup, and
whether anyone has had Redbridge cancel a PCN in circumstances
like this.
I can provide the Uber trip/job record as evidence and request
the full CCTV footage. Any advice from people who have dealt
with Redbridge red-route PCNs would be greatly appreciated.
#Post#: 129004--------------------------------------------------
Re: high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 27, 2026, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you'll struggle with this - it's a long stop and not
obviously part of a manoeuvre.
But are you aware Redbridge doesn't exempt PHVs on its red route
- TFL does.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/V0BgBqPC/Wk43-UEVa-Wnlk-VDRKM0h-DTEtp-MEJSc-XBSK0-Z5-Rkpx-UStycl-A5-Qn-ZYZ3-Jn-Z1-Ro-YSt-Wd-DNKU1-Jh-OTl-NMnlk-Ojph.gif
#Post#: 129012--------------------------------------------------
Re: high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: MrChips
Date: August 27, 2026, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Haven't there been successful adjudications to the effect that
there is no way of distinguishing tfl red routes from
Redbridge's?
#Post#: 129014--------------------------------------------------
Re: high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 27, 2026, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> Haven't there been successful adjudications to the effect that
there is no way of distinguishing tfl red routes from
Redbridge's?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes but Mr Burke for example is now refusing them as I think
signage is now in place and it's been long enough and publicised
for drivers to become aware.
----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
stopped where prohibited (on a Red Route or Clearway) in
Cranbrook Rd. The Appellant does not dispute this but says that
he is a private hire driver and stopped only to pick up
passengers. He has provided evidence of his private hire licence
and a screenshot of the particular job.
The enforcement camera evidence shows the vehicle stopping on a
double red line. It is consistent with the Appellant’s account,
showing passengers boarding the vehicle. However, as the Highway
Code makes clear the double red line always means ‘No stopping
at any time’.
London Borough of Redbridge has no boarding/alighting exemption
for private hire drivers on its Red Route. Nevertheless, I have
previously allowed appeals on the basis that the vast majority
of Red Routes are enforced by Transport for London who do allow
private hire drivers to stop for boarding/alighting. I took the
view it was fundamentally unfair for London Borough of Redbridge
to enforce PCNs as the driver would not be aware that the
exemption did not apply to the particular Red Route. For the
following reasons I take the view that the situation has changed
with the passage of time:
1.
information published by Transport for London makes it clear a
small number of Red Routes are enforced by Local Authorities
rather than Transport for London and that an accompanying map
does not show this location as a Transport for London Red Route.
2.
indicating that this Red Route is operated by London Borough of
Redbridge.
3.
expect any professional driver to familiarise himself with
parking restrictions generally and any local variations. By 2026
a private hire driver would or should have been aware that
London Borough of Redbridge does not have a boarding/alighting
for private hire vehicles. I would also expect the professional
driver to realise that Cranbrook Rd. was within the London
Borough of Redbridge.
As the Highway Code makes clear the double red line always means
‘No stopping at any time’. In all the circumstances I am not
satisfied the Appellant has established anything which goes
beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as
a matter of their discretion. The Appellant asserts that they
have failed properly to consider his representations but I am
not satisfied he has established any such failure. An
Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation on the basis of
mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the
contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and
served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
#Post#: 129050--------------------------------------------------
Re: high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: Bulop
Date: August 27, 2026, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> [quote author=MrChips link=topic=11843.msg129012#msg129012
date=1787833748]
> Haven't there been successful adjudications to the effect that
there is no way of distinguishing tfl red routes from
Redbridge's?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes but Mr Burke for example is now refusing them as I think
signage is now in place and it's been long enough and publicised
for drivers to become aware.
----------
Case reference 226011592A
Appellant Omar Mao
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EA68XUO
PCN Details
PCN AF58572511
Contravention date 02 Feb 2026
Contravention time 18:10:00
Contravention location Cranbrook Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Stopped where prohibited on red route or clearway
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid
within 28 days.
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was
stopped where prohibited (on a Red Route or Clearway) in
Cranbrook Rd. The Appellant does not dispute this but says that
he is a private hire driver and stopped only to pick up
passengers. He has provided evidence of his private hire licence
and a screenshot of the particular job.
The enforcement camera evidence shows the vehicle stopping on a
double red line. It is consistent with the Appellant’s account,
showing passengers boarding the vehicle. However, as the Highway
Code makes clear the double red line always means ‘No stopping
at any time’.
London Borough of Redbridge has no boarding/alighting exemption
for private hire drivers on its Red Route. Nevertheless, I have
previously allowed appeals on the basis that the vast majority
of Red Routes are enforced by Transport for London who do allow
private hire drivers to stop for boarding/alighting. I took the
view it was fundamentally unfair for London Borough of Redbridge
to enforce PCNs as the driver would not be aware that the
exemption did not apply to the particular Red Route. For the
following reasons I take the view that the situation has changed
with the passage of time:
1. The Enforcement Authority have provided evidence that
information published by Transport for London makes it clear a
small number of Red Routes are enforced by Local Authorities
rather than Transport for London and that an accompanying map
does not show this location as a Transport for London Red Route.
2. The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs of signs
indicating that this Red Route is operated by London Borough of
Redbridge.
3. The Red Route has been in place for some years now. I would
expect any professional driver to familiarise himself with
parking restrictions generally and any local variations. By 2026
a private hire driver would or should have been aware that
London Borough of Redbridge does not have a boarding/alighting
for private hire vehicles. I would also expect the professional
driver to realise that Cranbrook Rd. was within the London
Borough of Redbridge.
As the Highway Code makes clear the double red line always means
‘No stopping at any time’. In all the circumstances I am not
satisfied the Appellant has established anything which goes
beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as
a matter of their discretion. The Appellant asserts that they
have failed properly to consider his representations but I am
not satisfied he has established any such failure. An
Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation on the basis of
mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the
contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and
served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
[/quote]
Does the TfL red route rules also apply for this? For example
signage needs to be in place to enforce double red lines by
CCTV. I can't see any in the clip and the authority needs to
prove there are signs there.
#Post#: 129109--------------------------------------------------
Re: high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: Ray236
Date: August 28, 2026, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the replies.
I appreciate that the photographs appear to show the vehicle
partly on the footway, and I'm not trying to dispute what can be
seen in the photographs. What I'm trying to establish is whether
the authority's evidence actually proves the specific
contravention alleged on the PCN and whether there are any
issues with the location, signage, markings or circumstances
that could provide grounds for an appeal.
The vehicle was there in connection with my work as a private
hire driver and I was dealing with a passenger/navigation
situation rather than deliberately parking on the footway to
avoid traffic.
I'm aware that mitigation on its own may not be enough, so I'm
looking for advice on whether there is an actual
legal/procedural point worth pursuing rather than simply relying
on the fact that I had a reason for stopping.
If the consensus is that the photographs clearly establish the
contravention and there is no viable technical or legal ground,
then that's useful to know as well.
#Post#: 129111--------------------------------------------------
Re: high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 28, 2026, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I posted the video...
#Post#: 129373--------------------------------------------------
Re: high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: September 2, 2026, 6:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
>
> 3. The Red Route has been in place for some years now. I would
expect any professional driver to familiarise himself with
parking restrictions generally and any local variations. By 2026
a private hire driver would or should have been aware that
London Borough of Redbridge does not have a boarding/alighting
for private hire vehicles.
>
--- End Quote ---
What a load of cobblers!!! Mr. Burke fails to comprehend that a
PHV driver could be from anywhere in/around London, with
Redbridge being just one of the city's 33 boroughs/districts.
It could also be the driver's first day on the job.
Similar road markings having different directives/rules at
different locations should not be allowed!!
#Post#: 129377--------------------------------------------------
Re: high rd ilford cctv
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 2, 2026, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think Redbridge has now put up signs as Mr Burke notes.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1